[natty]

http://www.einhorninsurance.com/

Competitive cost and good service in my dealings.

[natty]

http://www.einhorninsurance.com/

Competitive cost and good service in my dealings.

[natty]

http://www.einhorninsurance.com/

Competitive cost and good service in my dealings.

[natty]

http://www.einhorninsurance.com/

Competitive cost and good service in my dealings.

[natty]

http://www.einhorninsurance.com/

Competitive cost and good service in my dealings.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]
free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.[/quote]

Natty: Since I’m not entirely sure what your answer is, I’ll simply focus on a couple of things that have been, indeed, lost.

First and foremost, the notion of a free and engaged press as a counterbalance to the powers that be and a countervailing force is being rapidly eroded to the point where what we’re being served up on television and in newspapers and periodicals is a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Second, and more important, the notional sense of being able to fact check and utilize this “infinite” engine that is the internet is exactly that: Notional. The whole purpose of investigative journalism is to investigate. Do you mean to tell me that, sitting in the comfort of your own home, you’re going to go out and ferret out stories of corporate malfeasance and governmental misdeeds? I think not. Where would you begin? How on earth would you even know where to look? The answer? You wouldn’t and its nonsensical to expect that you would.

So, with all due respect to your “Good Will Hunting” idiot savant janitor (and I’m not entirely sure why he’s even appearing in your response), we are losing something very important and technology isn’t going to replace it. Any more than “democracy” is going to replace “capitalism”, no matter how much Michael Moore wants it to.[/quote]

political ideologies aside, you appear to believe in major media as the engine to your mental car. tv & newsprint presently being a shadow of days past is not fact. i look to neither as THE source for critical information, many surrounding me practice similar. to search and destroy government misdeed is the business of hindsight journalism. if such information is critical to your being, i suggest you broaden your information sources. if you feel such journalism creates an atmosphere to police government; ideal in a ‘perfect world’ but not nearly as powerful in practice. media is as much a tool FOR government 40 years ago as it is today. the opinion or ‘investigation’ by one individual for one topic still must be qualified by one or many. Watergate was stamped by most, but is no more personally relevant than the next story.

the need to give specific examples of information researched and ‘fact checked’ is neither meaningful or productive for the topic of conversation. you believe in vocational titles given and that a person hired to work for the Washington Post 30 years ago will always be more capable and ‘credible’ than the person who is not. i don’t. google does not create a super all-knowing human mind, but the internet & computer provide the most unique tools in history to perform as user is capable and sees fit.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]
free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.[/quote]

Natty: Since I’m not entirely sure what your answer is, I’ll simply focus on a couple of things that have been, indeed, lost.

First and foremost, the notion of a free and engaged press as a counterbalance to the powers that be and a countervailing force is being rapidly eroded to the point where what we’re being served up on television and in newspapers and periodicals is a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Second, and more important, the notional sense of being able to fact check and utilize this “infinite” engine that is the internet is exactly that: Notional. The whole purpose of investigative journalism is to investigate. Do you mean to tell me that, sitting in the comfort of your own home, you’re going to go out and ferret out stories of corporate malfeasance and governmental misdeeds? I think not. Where would you begin? How on earth would you even know where to look? The answer? You wouldn’t and its nonsensical to expect that you would.

So, with all due respect to your “Good Will Hunting” idiot savant janitor (and I’m not entirely sure why he’s even appearing in your response), we are losing something very important and technology isn’t going to replace it. Any more than “democracy” is going to replace “capitalism”, no matter how much Michael Moore wants it to.[/quote]

political ideologies aside, you appear to believe in major media as the engine to your mental car. tv & newsprint presently being a shadow of days past is not fact. i look to neither as THE source for critical information, many surrounding me practice similar. to search and destroy government misdeed is the business of hindsight journalism. if such information is critical to your being, i suggest you broaden your information sources. if you feel such journalism creates an atmosphere to police government; ideal in a ‘perfect world’ but not nearly as powerful in practice. media is as much a tool FOR government 40 years ago as it is today. the opinion or ‘investigation’ by one individual for one topic still must be qualified by one or many. Watergate was stamped by most, but is no more personally relevant than the next story.

the need to give specific examples of information researched and ‘fact checked’ is neither meaningful or productive for the topic of conversation. you believe in vocational titles given and that a person hired to work for the Washington Post 30 years ago will always be more capable and ‘credible’ than the person who is not. i don’t. google does not create a super all-knowing human mind, but the internet & computer provide the most unique tools in history to perform as user is capable and sees fit.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]
free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.[/quote]

Natty: Since I’m not entirely sure what your answer is, I’ll simply focus on a couple of things that have been, indeed, lost.

First and foremost, the notion of a free and engaged press as a counterbalance to the powers that be and a countervailing force is being rapidly eroded to the point where what we’re being served up on television and in newspapers and periodicals is a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Second, and more important, the notional sense of being able to fact check and utilize this “infinite” engine that is the internet is exactly that: Notional. The whole purpose of investigative journalism is to investigate. Do you mean to tell me that, sitting in the comfort of your own home, you’re going to go out and ferret out stories of corporate malfeasance and governmental misdeeds? I think not. Where would you begin? How on earth would you even know where to look? The answer? You wouldn’t and its nonsensical to expect that you would.

So, with all due respect to your “Good Will Hunting” idiot savant janitor (and I’m not entirely sure why he’s even appearing in your response), we are losing something very important and technology isn’t going to replace it. Any more than “democracy” is going to replace “capitalism”, no matter how much Michael Moore wants it to.[/quote]

political ideologies aside, you appear to believe in major media as the engine to your mental car. tv & newsprint presently being a shadow of days past is not fact. i look to neither as THE source for critical information, many surrounding me practice similar. to search and destroy government misdeed is the business of hindsight journalism. if such information is critical to your being, i suggest you broaden your information sources. if you feel such journalism creates an atmosphere to police government; ideal in a ‘perfect world’ but not nearly as powerful in practice. media is as much a tool FOR government 40 years ago as it is today. the opinion or ‘investigation’ by one individual for one topic still must be qualified by one or many. Watergate was stamped by most, but is no more personally relevant than the next story.

the need to give specific examples of information researched and ‘fact checked’ is neither meaningful or productive for the topic of conversation. you believe in vocational titles given and that a person hired to work for the Washington Post 30 years ago will always be more capable and ‘credible’ than the person who is not. i don’t. google does not create a super all-knowing human mind, but the internet & computer provide the most unique tools in history to perform as user is capable and sees fit.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]
free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.[/quote]

Natty: Since I’m not entirely sure what your answer is, I’ll simply focus on a couple of things that have been, indeed, lost.

First and foremost, the notion of a free and engaged press as a counterbalance to the powers that be and a countervailing force is being rapidly eroded to the point where what we’re being served up on television and in newspapers and periodicals is a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Second, and more important, the notional sense of being able to fact check and utilize this “infinite” engine that is the internet is exactly that: Notional. The whole purpose of investigative journalism is to investigate. Do you mean to tell me that, sitting in the comfort of your own home, you’re going to go out and ferret out stories of corporate malfeasance and governmental misdeeds? I think not. Where would you begin? How on earth would you even know where to look? The answer? You wouldn’t and its nonsensical to expect that you would.

So, with all due respect to your “Good Will Hunting” idiot savant janitor (and I’m not entirely sure why he’s even appearing in your response), we are losing something very important and technology isn’t going to replace it. Any more than “democracy” is going to replace “capitalism”, no matter how much Michael Moore wants it to.[/quote]

political ideologies aside, you appear to believe in major media as the engine to your mental car. tv & newsprint presently being a shadow of days past is not fact. i look to neither as THE source for critical information, many surrounding me practice similar. to search and destroy government misdeed is the business of hindsight journalism. if such information is critical to your being, i suggest you broaden your information sources. if you feel such journalism creates an atmosphere to police government; ideal in a ‘perfect world’ but not nearly as powerful in practice. media is as much a tool FOR government 40 years ago as it is today. the opinion or ‘investigation’ by one individual for one topic still must be qualified by one or many. Watergate was stamped by most, but is no more personally relevant than the next story.

the need to give specific examples of information researched and ‘fact checked’ is neither meaningful or productive for the topic of conversation. you believe in vocational titles given and that a person hired to work for the Washington Post 30 years ago will always be more capable and ‘credible’ than the person who is not. i don’t. google does not create a super all-knowing human mind, but the internet & computer provide the most unique tools in history to perform as user is capable and sees fit.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]
free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.[/quote]

Natty: Since I’m not entirely sure what your answer is, I’ll simply focus on a couple of things that have been, indeed, lost.

First and foremost, the notion of a free and engaged press as a counterbalance to the powers that be and a countervailing force is being rapidly eroded to the point where what we’re being served up on television and in newspapers and periodicals is a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Second, and more important, the notional sense of being able to fact check and utilize this “infinite” engine that is the internet is exactly that: Notional. The whole purpose of investigative journalism is to investigate. Do you mean to tell me that, sitting in the comfort of your own home, you’re going to go out and ferret out stories of corporate malfeasance and governmental misdeeds? I think not. Where would you begin? How on earth would you even know where to look? The answer? You wouldn’t and its nonsensical to expect that you would.

So, with all due respect to your “Good Will Hunting” idiot savant janitor (and I’m not entirely sure why he’s even appearing in your response), we are losing something very important and technology isn’t going to replace it. Any more than “democracy” is going to replace “capitalism”, no matter how much Michael Moore wants it to.[/quote]

political ideologies aside, you appear to believe in major media as the engine to your mental car. tv & newsprint presently being a shadow of days past is not fact. i look to neither as THE source for critical information, many surrounding me practice similar. to search and destroy government misdeed is the business of hindsight journalism. if such information is critical to your being, i suggest you broaden your information sources. if you feel such journalism creates an atmosphere to police government; ideal in a ‘perfect world’ but not nearly as powerful in practice. media is as much a tool FOR government 40 years ago as it is today. the opinion or ‘investigation’ by one individual for one topic still must be qualified by one or many. Watergate was stamped by most, but is no more personally relevant than the next story.

the need to give specific examples of information researched and ‘fact checked’ is neither meaningful or productive for the topic of conversation. you believe in vocational titles given and that a person hired to work for the Washington Post 30 years ago will always be more capable and ‘credible’ than the person who is not. i don’t. google does not create a super all-knowing human mind, but the internet & computer provide the most unique tools in history to perform as user is capable and sees fit.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[natty]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=natty]

Using Watergate as the benchmark of journalism states only that this specific reporting was confirmed after the event to be revealed as truth. Such a given journalistic stamp of approval is not difficult to find the past 100yrs.

The difference between now vs.’then'(any day past 100yrs), a reader is equipped with more tools to qualify words written/spoken at increased rate of time.

A ‘reporter’ defines nothing, for me. Never has. A person who provides information on a given subject or story–whatever the topic–and proves to be truth for me, the reporting individual has a ‘leg up’, but is not beyond my own ‘fact checking’-should I feel the need.[/quote]

So, in your opinion, the average American reader has the capability to fact check the veracity of any given story and can avail themselves of the same resources as an experienced investigative reporter?

Not delving into journalistic ethics here, or proper reportage (i.e. not only sussing out all of the relevant facts, but ascertaining their place in the overall narrative), but simply focusing on fact checking.

The key facts here would be where you stand in terms of education, literacy and numeracy, and how that differs from the “average” American. The fact that you post on Piggington would probably place you in a higher strata, but that somewhat makes my point for me: A free press is there for all citizens, regardless of rank, income or social class, and, yes, that is being lost.[/quote]

i can’t speak for the average american. the phrase rings hollow for me, have no idea what it even means. intelligence in a broad sense is not measurable by number. my own ability to think and learn is beyond personal measure.

free press is not being lost-in fact, it has grown infinitely. an experienced investigative reporter means nothing more to me than an accountant who has been self employed for decades. individual could be no better or worse than fulfilling a void, doing a job, providing a service to those who will pay for it. the ‘experienced investigative reporter’ could be no more talented than a 16 year old who has learned to track and trace bank account information across the globe via internet.

do i expect a reader to fact check every word/article read, no, but said person does have choice and more immediate access to information than ever before. More meaning, the internet is super tool.

it’s easy to wax about days past. the reality is, all generations live and adapt to new technology. arguable of as whole, some generations more, some less. but the outcome is same, some as result of vocation choice and monetary wealth appear more mentally flexible with the times, than the part time employed local school janitor who can recite canterbury tales and works on statistical algorithms as hobby by night.

[Author]

Posts